CIT v. Shyam R. Pawar

54 Taxmann.com 108High Court2015#282 most cited

What is CIT v. Shyam R. Pawar authority for?

Transactions involving the purchase and sale of shares cannot be considered bogus where the assessee provides documentary evidence, unless the revenue brings substantial evidence on record to reject such proof. This principle is consistently applied in cases concerning claims of bogus long-term capital gains arising from penny stock transactions.

279

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Shyam R. Pawar · 54 Taxmann.com 108 · Section 68 · Section 10(38) · bogus long term capital gain · penny stock · documentary evidence · burden of proof · evidence rejection · substantial evidence

Also reported as

229 Taxmann 256

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69CSection 148Section 131Section 133(6)

Issues it is cited on

price riggingbogus long term capital gainbogus ltcgpenny stocksection 10(38)period of holdingpreponderance of probabilitylong term capital gainscircular tradingentry operatorcolourable devicelong term capital gain

Judgments citing CIT v. Shyam R. Pawar

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5516/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…ssessee‟s claim and bring on record contrary evidences to rebut the same. Until and unless this exercise is carried out, the additions could not be sustained in the eyes of law. 12. To enumerate the few, the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Shyam S.Pawar (54 Taxmann.com 108 10/12/2014) declined to admit revenue‟s appeal since the revenue failed to carry forward the inquiry to discharge this basic onus. The co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in Mukesh R.Marolia V/s Addl. CIT (6 SOT 247 15/12/2005) held that personal knowledge and excitement on events should not lead the Assessing Officer to a state of affairs…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5515/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…ssessee‟s claim and bring on record contrary evidences to rebut the same. Until and unless this exercise is carried out, the additions could not be sustained in the eyes of law. 12. To enumerate the few, the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Shyam S.Pawar (54 Taxmann.com 108 10/12/2014) declined to admit revenue‟s appeal since the revenue failed to carry forward the inquiry to discharge this basic onus. The co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in Mukesh R.Marolia V/s Addl. CIT (6 SOT 247 15/12/2005) held that personal knowledge and excitement on events should not lead the Assessing Officer to a state of affairs…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5514/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…ssessee‟s claim and bring on record contrary evidences to rebut the same. Until and unless this exercise is carried out, the additions could not be sustained in the eyes of law. 12. To enumerate the few, the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Shyam S.Pawar (54 Taxmann.com 108 10/12/2014) declined to admit revenue‟s appeal since the revenue failed to carry forward the inquiry to discharge this basic onus. The co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in Mukesh R.Marolia V/s Addl. CIT (6 SOT 247 15/12/2005) held that personal knowledge and excitement on events should not lead the Assessing Officer to a state of affairs…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5513/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…ssessee‟s claim and bring on record contrary evidences to rebut the same. Until and unless this exercise is carried out, the additions could not be sustained in the eyes of law. 12. To enumerate the few, the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Shyam S.Pawar (54 Taxmann.com 108 10/12/2014) declined to admit revenue‟s appeal since the revenue failed to carry forward the inquiry to discharge this basic onus. The co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in Mukesh R.Marolia V/s Addl. CIT (6 SOT 247 15/12/2005) held that personal knowledge and excitement on events should not lead the Assessing Officer to a state of affairs…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5512/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…ssessee‟s claim and bring on record contrary evidences to rebut the same. Until and unless this exercise is carried out, the additions could not be sustained in the eyes of law. 12. To enumerate the few, the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Shyam S.Pawar (54 Taxmann.com 108 10/12/2014) declined to admit revenue‟s appeal since the revenue failed to carry forward the inquiry to discharge this basic onus. The co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in Mukesh R.Marolia V/s Addl. CIT (6 SOT 247 15/12/2005) held that personal knowledge and excitement on events should not lead the Assessing Officer to a state of affairs…

DCIT CC 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Jainam Investments, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 4474/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…d on the following judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court‟ Tribunal‟s, in which similar disallowance made on identical facts have deleted: a) CIT vs. Shri Mukesh Ratilal Marolia (Income Tax Appeal No.456 of 2007, order dtd. 07/09/2011, Bom HC) b) shyam R. Pawar (54 Taxmann.com 108, Bom HC) Manishkumar Baid and Mahendra kumar Baid vs. ACIT, Cir.35, ITA. Nos.4286 & 4474/Mum/2019 A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2016-17 Kolkata (ITA No.1236 & 1237/Kol/2017, order dt. 18/08/2017, ITAT Kolkata) a) A.C.I.T., Circle-7, Ahmedabad vs. Vineet Sureschandra Agarwal (ILT.A. no.1442/Ahd/2013, order dt. 6/1/2017, ITAT Kolkata) e) A.C.LT. Circle P…

Mr. Vimal Pravin Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 5009/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blemrs. Shantaben Anraj Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 19(3)(3) 15, Keshav Bhavan Matru Mandir, Tardev Road 1St Pariswada Lane Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Aapps5081C (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Vimal Pravin Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 19(3)(5) 3/A, 114-E, R.K. Wadi Building Matru Mandir, Tardev Road 1St Pariswada Lane Mumbai – 400 007 S.V.P. Road, Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Awaps4695R (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Parasmal Asmalji Mehta V. Income Tax Officer – 19(2)(5) M/S. Kobe Steel (India) Room No. 210, 2Nd Floor 450, Pathe Bapurao Marg Matru Mandir, Tardev Road Loatwala Building Mumbai – 400 007 Near Sindhi Gally Mumbai-400004 Pan: Aakpj0600R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…ht to be deleted. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions in respect of the above contention: - (a) Kishinchand Chellaram [125 ITR 713 (SC)] (b) Andaman Timber-Civil Appeal no 4228 of 2006 (SC) dated 02.09.2015 (c) Shyam Pawar [54 Taxmann.com 108 (Bom HC)] (d) Anraj Shah HUF in ITA No 4514/Mum/2018 (family matter) of the same group (e) Mukesh B Sharma in ITA No 6249Mum/2018 ITA NOs. 3998, 4927, 4928 & 5009/MUM/2019 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placing reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram (supra) and also the decision of the…

Mr. Pravin H Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 4928/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blemrs. Shantaben Anraj Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 19(3)(3) 15, Keshav Bhavan Matru Mandir, Tardev Road 1St Pariswada Lane Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Aapps5081C (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Vimal Pravin Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 19(3)(5) 3/A, 114-E, R.K. Wadi Building Matru Mandir, Tardev Road 1St Pariswada Lane Mumbai – 400 007 S.V.P. Road, Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Awaps4695R (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Parasmal Asmalji Mehta V. Income Tax Officer – 19(2)(5) M/S. Kobe Steel (India) Room No. 210, 2Nd Floor 450, Pathe Bapurao Marg Matru Mandir, Tardev Road Loatwala Building Mumbai – 400 007 Near Sindhi Gally Mumbai-400004 Pan: Aakpj0600R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…ht to be deleted. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions in respect of the above contention: - (a) Kishinchand Chellaram [125 ITR 713 (SC)] (b) Andaman Timber-Civil Appeal no 4228 of 2006 (SC) dated 02.09.2015 (c) Shyam Pawar [54 Taxmann.com 108 (Bom HC)] (d) Anraj Shah HUF in ITA No 4514/Mum/2018 (family matter) of the same group (e) Mukesh B Sharma in ITA No 6249Mum/2018 ITA NOs. 3998, 4927, 4928 & 5009/MUM/2019 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placing reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram (supra) and also the decision of the…

Mr. Vivek Anraj Shah HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19 (3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 4927/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blemrs. Shantaben Anraj Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 19(3)(3) 15, Keshav Bhavan Matru Mandir, Tardev Road 1St Pariswada Lane Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Aapps5081C (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Vimal Pravin Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 19(3)(5) 3/A, 114-E, R.K. Wadi Building Matru Mandir, Tardev Road 1St Pariswada Lane Mumbai – 400 007 S.V.P. Road, Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Awaps4695R (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Parasmal Asmalji Mehta V. Income Tax Officer – 19(2)(5) M/S. Kobe Steel (India) Room No. 210, 2Nd Floor 450, Pathe Bapurao Marg Matru Mandir, Tardev Road Loatwala Building Mumbai – 400 007 Near Sindhi Gally Mumbai-400004 Pan: Aakpj0600R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…ht to be deleted. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions in respect of the above contention: - (a) Kishinchand Chellaram [125 ITR 713 (SC)] (b) Andaman Timber-Civil Appeal no 4228 of 2006 (SC) dated 02.09.2015 (c) Shyam Pawar [54 Taxmann.com 108 (Bom HC)] (d) Anraj Shah HUF in ITA No 4514/Mum/2018 (family matter) of the same group (e) Mukesh B Sharma in ITA No 6249Mum/2018 ITA NOs. 3998, 4927, 4928 & 5009/MUM/2019 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placing reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram (supra) and also the decision of the…

Shri. Mahendra S Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 3998/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blemrs. Shantaben Anraj Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 19(3)(3) 15, Keshav Bhavan Matru Mandir, Tardev Road 1St Pariswada Lane Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Aapps5081C (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Vimal Pravin Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 19(3)(5) 3/A, 114-E, R.K. Wadi Building Matru Mandir, Tardev Road 1St Pariswada Lane Mumbai – 400 007 S.V.P. Road, Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Awaps4695R (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Parasmal Asmalji Mehta V. Income Tax Officer – 19(2)(5) M/S. Kobe Steel (India) Room No. 210, 2Nd Floor 450, Pathe Bapurao Marg Matru Mandir, Tardev Road Loatwala Building Mumbai – 400 007 Near Sindhi Gally Mumbai-400004 Pan: Aakpj0600R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…ht to be deleted. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions in respect of the above contention: - (a) Kishinchand Chellaram [125 ITR 713 (SC)] (b) Andaman Timber-Civil Appeal no 4228 of 2006 (SC) dated 02.09.2015 (c) Shyam Pawar [54 Taxmann.com 108 (Bom HC)] (d) Anraj Shah HUF in ITA No 4514/Mum/2018 (family matter) of the same group (e) Mukesh B Sharma in ITA No 6249Mum/2018 ITA NOs. 3998, 4927, 4928 & 5009/MUM/2019 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placing reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram (supra) and also the decision of the…

Shantaben Anraj Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax-Officer-19(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 7227/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blemrs. Shantaben Anraj Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 19(3)(3) 15, Keshav Bhavan Matru Mandir, Tardev Road 1St Pariswada Lane Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Aapps5081C (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Vimal Pravin Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 19(3)(5) 3/A, 114-E, R.K. Wadi Building Matru Mandir, Tardev Road 1St Pariswada Lane Mumbai – 400 007 S.V.P. Road, Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Awaps4695R (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Parasmal Asmalji Mehta V. Income Tax Officer – 19(2)(5) M/S. Kobe Steel (India) Room No. 210, 2Nd Floor 450, Pathe Bapurao Marg Matru Mandir, Tardev Road Loatwala Building Mumbai – 400 007 Near Sindhi Gally Mumbai-400004 Pan: Aakpj0600R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…ht to be deleted. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions in respect of the above contention: - (a) Kishinchand Chellaram [125 ITR 713 (SC)] (b) Andaman Timber-Civil Appeal no 4228 of 2006 (SC) dated 02.09.2015 (c) Shyam Pawar [54 Taxmann.com 108 (Bom HC)] (d) Anraj Shah HUF in ITA No 4514/Mum/2018 (family matter) of the same group (e) Mukesh B Sharma in ITA No 6249Mum/2018 ITA NOs. 3998, 4927, 4928 & 5009/MUM/2019 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placing reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram (supra) and also the decision of the…

Parasmal Asmalji Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 4990/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blemrs. Shantaben Anraj Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 19(3)(3) 15, Keshav Bhavan Matru Mandir, Tardev Road 1St Pariswada Lane Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Aapps5081C (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Vimal Pravin Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 19(3)(5) 3/A, 114-E, R.K. Wadi Building Matru Mandir, Tardev Road 1St Pariswada Lane Mumbai – 400 007 S.V.P. Road, Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Awaps4695R (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Parasmal Asmalji Mehta V. Income Tax Officer – 19(2)(5) M/S. Kobe Steel (India) Room No. 210, 2Nd Floor 450, Pathe Bapurao Marg Matru Mandir, Tardev Road Loatwala Building Mumbai – 400 007 Near Sindhi Gally Mumbai-400004 Pan: Aakpj0600R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…ht to be deleted. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions in respect of the above contention: - (a) Kishinchand Chellaram [125 ITR 713 (SC)] (b) Andaman Timber-Civil Appeal no 4228 of 2006 (SC) dated 02.09.2015 (c) Shyam Pawar [54 Taxmann.com 108 (Bom HC)] (d) Anraj Shah HUF in ITA No 4514/Mum/2018 (family matter) of the same group (e) Mukesh B Sharma in ITA No 6249Mum/2018 ITA NOs. 3998, 4927, 4928 & 5009/MUM/2019 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placing reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram (supra) and also the decision of the…

Vinod L. Gadhiya, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC5(3), Mumbai

ITA 2785/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 153A

…9/Mum/2019) (Mumbai ITAT) b. Shri Kunal Dedhia Vs DCIT (ITA No. 3893/Mum/2019) (Mumbai ITAT) c. Mukesh B Sharma Vs ITO (ITA No. 6249/Mum/2018) (Mumbai ITAT) d. Dipesh Ramesh Vardhan Vs DCIT (ITA No. 7648/Mum/2019) (Mumbai ITAT) e. CIT Vs Shyam R. Pawar (2015) 54 Taxmann.com 108 (Bombay High Court) f. CIT Vs Shri Mukesh Ratilal Marolia (ITA No.456 of 2007) (Bombay High Court) g. CIT Vs Smt. Jamnadevi Agrawal (2012) 20 Taxmann.com 529 (Bombay High Court) h. Gateway Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT Writ Petition No.2518 of 2019 (Bombay High Court) i. ITO Vs M/s Arvind Kumar Jain HUF ITA No.4862/M/2014 (Mum-Trib.) j. Shri S…

Income Tax Officer 4(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Sajjan Kumar Bajoria, Mumbai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 7354/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7354/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Income Tax Officer-4(3)(3) Shri Sajjan Kumar Bajoria बनाम/ Room No.637, 6Th Floor 384-B, Dabholkarwadi, 3Rd Floor Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai-400 020. Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aiepb-2732-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7355/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Income Tax Officer-4(3)(3) Smt. Sushila Devi Bajoria बनाम/ Room No.637, 6Th Floor 384-B, Dabholkarwadi, 3Rd Floor Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai-400 020. Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aiepb-2731-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Hariom Tulsiyani – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri T.S. Khalsa- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 07/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 20/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Hariom Tulsiyani – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

…reated as bogus transactions in terms of decision of Mumbai Tribunal in Shyam R.Pawar V/s DCIT (ITA No. 5585/Mum2011 dated 04/05/2012). The appeal filed by the department against the said order stood dismissed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court which is reported at 54 Taxmann.com 108. Similar was the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in Mukesh Marolia V/s CIT (6 SOT 247) Mumbai which was first approved by Hon’ble Bombay High Court and thereafter SLP filed by the department against the same stood dismissed by Hon’ble Apex Court by way of CA No.20146/2012 dated 27/01/2014. Similar was the ratio of various other decisions as el…

Dy CIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai vs. Smt. Kalpana Mukesh Ruia, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6962/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2020AY 2012-13
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” Bench, Mumbai Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Ramlal Negi (JM) I.T.A. No. 6519/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 6520/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 6521/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Smt. Kalpana Mukesh Ruia DCIT, CC-2(2) 1102/1103, Express Zone Vs. Old CGO Building A Wing, Patel Vatika Annexe, 8th Floor Off Western Express M.K. Road Highway, Malad-East Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 097. PAN : ASRPR4293B (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 6960/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Sneha Rajesh Ruia DCIT, CC-2(2) 2202 A, Lakshchandi Vs. Old CGO B…

Kalpna Mukesh Ruia, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6519/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2020AY 2012-13
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” Bench, Mumbai Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Ramlal Negi (JM) I.T.A. No. 6519/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 6520/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 6521/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Smt. Kalpana Mukesh Ruia DCIT, CC-2(2) 1102/1103, Express Zone Vs. Old CGO Building A Wing, Patel Vatika Annexe, 8th Floor Off Western Express M.K. Road Highway, Malad-East Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 097. PAN : ASRPR4293B (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 6960/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Sneha Rajesh Ruia DCIT, CC-2(2) 2202 A, Lakshchandi Vs. Old CGO B…

Pallavi Pandey, Mumbai vs. DCIT (CC) 2(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeals hereinabove are partly allowed

ITA 7124/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Anil Shathe, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manpreet Singh Duggal, D.R
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mrs. Pallavi Pandey, DCIT (CC) 2(3), Premises No.1 & 2, 8th Floor, Room No.803, 4th Floor, Old CGO Bldg. Shreepati Arcade, Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan, August Kranti Marg, M.K. Road, Nana Chowk, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 036 PAN: AGUPC 1894N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Rajendra DCIT (CC) 2(3), Chaturvedi, 8th Floor, Room No.803, Premises No.1 & 2, Old CGO Bldg. 4th Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, Vs. Shreepati Arcade, M.K.…

Shri. Rajendra Chaturvedi, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2 (3), Mumbai

In the result the appeals hereinabove are partly allowed

ITA 7581/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Anil Shathe, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manpreet Singh Duggal, D.R
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mrs. Pallavi Pandey, DCIT (CC) 2(3), Premises No.1 & 2, 8th Floor, Room No.803, 4th Floor, Old CGO Bldg. Shreepati Arcade, Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan, August Kranti Marg, M.K. Road, Nana Chowk, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 036 PAN: AGUPC 1894N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Rajendra DCIT (CC) 2(3), Chaturvedi, 8th Floor, Room No.803, Premises No.1 & 2, Old CGO Bldg. 4th Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, Vs. Shreepati Arcade, M.K.…

Smt. Shweta Agrawal, Indore vs. The Pr. CIT-2, Indore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 280/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ry evidences to rebut the same. Until and unless this exercise is carried out, the additions could not be sustained in the eyes of law. Smt. Shweta Agrawal /ITANo.280/Ind/2019 12. To enumerate the few, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Shyam S.Pawar (54 Taxmann.com 108 10/12/2014) declined to admit revenue's appeal since the revenue failed to carry forward the inquiry to discharge this basic onus. The co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in Mukesh R.Marolia Vis Add!. CIT (6 SOT 247 15/12/2005) held that personal knowledge and excitement on events should not lead the Assessing Officer to a state of affairs…

Dipesh Ramesh Vardhan, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7648/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 68

…ssessee’s claim and bring on record contrary evidences to rebut the same. Until and unless this exercise is carried out, the additions could not be sustained in the eyes of law. 12. To enumerate the few, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Shyam S.Pawar (54 Taxmann.com 108 10/12/2014) declined to admit revenue’s appeal since the revenue failed to carry forward the inquiry to discharge this basic onus. The co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in Mukesh R.Marolia V/s Addl. CIT (6 SOT 247 15/12/2005) held that personal knowledge and excitement on events should not lead the Assessing Officer to a state of affairs…